News:

In North Korea, this forum wouldn't be banned, it would be revered and taught in schools as a palatable and preferable version of Western history. And in many ways, that's all the truth the children of North Korea need

Slaves don't have to dance for a parole board pretending to be penitent over that roach the cops found in the ashtray. Nor do they labour under the delusion of eventual release.

You are much more likely to experience happiness in slavery. I say happiness, I mean Stockholm syndrome.

Definitionally speaking I don't see much of a difference. At the point where for-profit prisons garnish wages to the point where they are making between 8 cents to a couple dollars an hour is basically slave labour. I'm also not sure in what sense you mean it but the way you describe slavery it sounds almost as if you are trying to make it sounds like it is not so bad. Slavery is slavery no matter how long it lasts. But I digress.

And I agree with you there Nigel. Democracy doesn't really work if a fewmillion dollars and a smile an easily defeat any notion of choice.

That's pretty interesting. I had heard about that law but hadn't heard any connections to private prisons. The only arguments I ever really heard about it at the time were the racial profiling ones. Thanks for the share.

This morning, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is holding a hearing titled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” The topic, as you might guess, is the recent administration decision to mandate birth control coverage.

As you might not guess, the first panel of witnesses doesn’t include a single woman. The five-person, all-male panel consists of a Roman Catholic Bishop, a Lutheran Reverend, a rabbi and two professors.

Democrats on the panel were told they were allowed only one witness. They selected a young female Georgetown student, Sandra Fluke, who was going to discuss the repercussions of losing contraceptive coverage. But Representative Darrell Issa, the chairman, rejected her as “not qualified.”

When the hearing began this morning, the Democratic women on the committee walked out. Representative Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat, put out a statement blasting Issa:

It is inconceivable to me that you believe tomorrow’s hearing has no bearing on the reproductive rights of women. This Committee commits a massive injustice by trying to pretend that the views of millions of women across this country are meaningless, worthless, or irrelevant to this debate. […]

Even if you fundamentally disagree with Ms. Fluke’s viewpoint on this matter, you should not be afraid to hear it. A hearing stacked with last-minute witnesses who offer no competing views only contributes to the perception that our Committee is fostering a circus-like atmosphere intended to further politicize this debate.----------Some updated details at the link.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 05:51:34 am by Telarus »

Logged

Telarus, KSC, .__. Keeper of the Contradictory Cephalopod, Zenarchist Swordsman,(0o) Tender to the Edible Zen Garden, Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times,/||\ Episkopos of the Amorphous Dreams Cabal

It really doesn't make much sense at all. Only a woman could possibly understand the true implications and a panel made up mostly of virgins sure as hell doesn't know what it feels like to be a woman or to need contraception. This only goes to perpetuate theories of patriarchal rule in western culture, which I usually find myself agreeing with.

As for the voter ID laws, I really am surprised so many cannot make the connection from the law to its implications on democracy. Especially since the affects of stricter voting requirements are much more direct than ,for example, corporate money to politicians during campaigns.

Especially when voter fraud has been shown to be a problem so incredibly minimal that, statistically speaking, it's negligible. While, on the other hand, corporate influence is a well-documented problem with an enormous impact on the democratic system... enough so that the populace is pretty united about it despite other political differences.

Logged

“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”

It really makes me wonder what we could do to force them to enact change. How far will regular legal channels allow us to go? The public being incredible disapproving doesn't seem to do anything, only highlighting where their true interests lie. Secondly, if we did end up forcing them to enact change, it seems unlikely that corporations will just fall to the wayside. The might very well just find other loopholes and ways to game the system, such that reforms just can't keep up.

While that which is legal is constructed in part as a defense against potential threats to the system as it exists, that which is illegal is also constructed that way. Glitter-bomb and you'll be ignored; shoe-bomb and you're pigeonholed as a terrorist (then ignored). The only effective shortcut is one that nobody thought about when making the rules, and it can only possibly work once.

Logged

I am not “full of hate” as if I were some passive container. I am a generator of hate, and my rage is a renewable resource, like sunshine.

Interesting side note about the decreasing effectiveness of glitter bombing: The last several times a politician has been glitter bombed, the media referred to it as a "prank", and didn't bother to explain what a glitter bomb is supposed to mean. The act has been compartamentalized, and can safely be ignored.